• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제50권6호
• /
• pp.541-549
• /
• 2023

Background Despite its many advantages, prepectoral breast reconstruction also carries the risk of implant rippling. The recent introduction of partial superior implant coverage using a pectoralis muscle slip in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction has shown the potential to minimize upper pole rippling. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with rippling and the effectiveness of our surgical technique. Methods In total, 156 patients (186 breasts) who underwent prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction between August 2019 and March 2021 were identified retrospectively. Patient data were analyzed from medical records. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed to contextualize the risks associated with rippling deformity relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors. Retrospective propensity-matched analysis was performed to identify the relationship between rippling deformity and the reconstruction method. Results Patients with body mass index (BMI; odds ratio [OR], 0.736; p < 0.001), those with a postoperative chemotherapy history (OR, 0.324; p = 0.027) and those who received breast reconstruction via the superior coverage technique (OR, 0.2; p = 0.004), were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The median follow-up period was 64.9 weeks, and there were no significant differences between patients in types of mastectomy, implant, or acellular dermal matrix. Patients who underwent superior coverage technique-based reconstruction showed significantly reduced rippling (OR, 0.083; p = 0.017) Conclusion Patients with higher BMI and prior postoperative chemotherapy were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The superior coverage technique can be effective in minimizing upper pole rippling.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제47권6호
• /
• pp.567-573
• /
• 2020

Background Polyurethane implants have been used on and off in breast reconstruction since 1991 while prepectoral breast reconstruction has gained popularity in recent times. In this study, we present our outcomes from the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) complete wrap with polyurethane implants in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Methods This is a retrospective review of prospectively maintained database from 41 patients receiving complete ADM wrap with prepectoral polyurethane implants over a 3-year period. Selection criteria were adapted from a previous study (4135 Trust Clinical Audit Database) evaluating prepectoral reconstruction with Braxon matrices. Patient demographics, operative data, surgical complications, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results A total of 52 implant reconstructions were performed in 41 patients with a mean follow-up of 14.3 months (range, 6-36 months). The overall reported complication rates including early (less than 6 weeks) and late complications. Early complications included two patients (4.9%) with wound dehiscence. One of which had an implant loss that was salvageable. Another patient (2%) developed red-breast syndrome and two women (4.9%) developed with seroma treated conservatively. Late complications included one patient (2%) with grade II capsular contraction, 12 patients with grade I-II rippling and two patients (4.9%) with grade III rippling. Conclusions We present our experience of prepectoral polyurethane implant using complete ADM wrap. This is one of the few papers to report on the outcome of the prepectoral use of polyurethane in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Our early observational series show satisfactory outcome and long-term results are warranted by a large multicenter study.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제41권5호
• /
• pp.529-534
• /
• 2014

Background In 2012, a new anatomic breast implant of form-stable silicone gel was introduced onto the Korean market. The intended use of this implant is in the area of aesthetic breast surgery, and many reports are promising. Thus far, however, there have been no reports on the use of this implant for breast reconstruction in Korea. We used this breast implant in breast reconstruction surgery and report our early experience. Methods From November 2012 to April 2013, the Natrelle Style 410 form-stable anatomically shaped cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implant was used in 31 breasts of 30 patients for implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix. Patients were treated with skin-sparing mastectomies followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Results The mean breast resection volume was 240 mL (range, 83-540 mL). The mean size of the breast implants was 217 mL (range, 125-395 mL). Breast shape outcomes were considered acceptable. Infection and skin thinning occurred in one patient each, and hematoma and seroma did not occur. Three cases of wound dehiscence occurred, one requiring surgical intervention, while the others healed with conservative treatment in one month. Rippling did not occur. So far, complications such as capsular contracture and malrotation of breast implant have not yet arisen. Conclusions By using anatomic breast implants in breast reconstruction, we achieved satisfactory results with aesthetics better than those obtained with round breast implants. Therefore, we concluded that the anatomical implant is suitable for breast reconstruction.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제49권5호
• /
• pp.587-595
• /
• 2022

Background The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the "Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)" grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제46권6호
• /
• pp.550-557
• /
• 2019

Background In recent years, breast implants have been frequently placed in the subcutaneous pocket, in the so-called prepectoral approach. We report our technique of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), as well as its surgical and aesthetic outcomes, in comparison with subpectoral IBR. We also discuss relevant considerations and pitfalls in prepectoral IBR and suggest an algorithm for the selection of patients for IBR based on our experiences. Methods We performed 79 immediate breast reconstructions with a breast implant and an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling, of which 47 were subpectoral IBRs and 32 were prepectoral IBRs. Two-stage IBR was performed in 36 cases (20 subpectoral, 16 prepectoral), and direct-to-implant IBR in 43 cases (27 prepectoral, 16 subpectoral). The ADM sling supplemented the inferolateral side of the breast prosthesis in the subpectoral group and covered the entire anterior surface of the breast prosthesis in the prepectoral group. Results The postoperative pain score was much lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (1.78 vs. 7.17). The incidence of seroma was higher in the prepectoral group (31.3% vs. 6.4%). Other postoperative complications, such as surgical site infection, flap necrosis, implant failure, and wound dehiscence, occurred at similar rates in both groups. Animation deformities developed in 8.5% of patients in the subpectoral group and rippling deformities were more common in the prepectoral group (21.9% vs. 12.8%). Conclusions The indications for prepectoral IBR include moderately-sized breasts with a thick well-vascularized mastectomy flap and concomitant bilateral breast reconstruction with prophylactic mastectomy.